I've hung my overcoat at the crossroads of media technology and social change for the last 20 years as a journalist, author, and consultant. That includes a book - CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World (Wiley) which chronicles the rise of online social activism - and bylines at The New York Times, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, techPresident.com, Social Edge, Industry Standard, Inside, Worth and Contribute magazines, among many other publications. I co-founded three companies, including the pioneering '90s protoblog @NY and CauseWired, my consulting firm currently advising clients on the social commons. In my spare time, I'm an adjunct instructor of social media and philanthropy at New York University.

Is #GivingTuesday A Keeper? (Hint: Only If It's Open)

Yesterday was #GivingTuesday, the hashtag powered day of charity that is designed to follow the pre-holiday shopping bacchanals of Black Friday and the more arriviste Cyber Monday with 24 hours of people-powered philanthropy. In short: buy, buy some more online, and then give. Or as Bill Gates (a key backer of the project) tweeted yesterday:

In theory, it’s a fantastic idea to leaven the annual spendathon and advertising blitz with a national day of charitable expansion, a sober flag amidst the blinding lights of the joyous holiday season that reminds us to give back to our communities along with the sweaters and gadgets and toys we exchange with each other. Perhaps it will increase overall giving, or encourage Americans to support a wider portfolio of charities. And maybe it helps to supercharge nonprofits’ annual campaigns, giving them a clearly delineated – and widely approved – starting line from which to bombard potential supporters with messages of hope and goodwill.

Then I saw a warning sign in tiny type stuck the upper corner of the #GivingTuesday logo. “TM,” as in trademark, as in the intellectual and commercial property of somebody or something. And in that moment, the social brand of #GivingTuesday lost a bit of value in the stock market of my soul.

Talk about red flags. Do citizens movements come with intellectual property lawyers attached? As usual, Allison Fine was already a half step ahead of me. “Somebody let a lawyer in the room,” she wrote on her blog.

And indeed, they did. It may be one of the existential questions of this age: how can a hashtag have a trademark? Think of it. Bill Gates doesn’t own #BillGates. Google doesn’t own #Google. The New York Jets sure as heck don’t own #Jets (understatement of the year – try it). Forbes doesn’t own #Forbes. And no, Tom Watson doesn’t own #tomwatson. So what’s the deal with a movement to encourage charitable giving after all the yearly spending doing with that little TM right after the name of that movement – which is, itself, a simple non-aligned hashtag, free and available for all to use, positively or negatively. Here’s Allison:

An event powered by a hashtag breathes outwards, it is open for anyone to join, talk about, share, and spread. An event organized by a trademark sucks in, has rules and regulations about who can participate and how. Giving Tuesday was more the former than the later which was a large part of its success. During the afternoon, I noticed on the twitter stream using the hashtag an emphasis on volunteerism as a great way to give. The implication was that writing a check is just one of many ways to give. This wasn’t a planned discussion, just one of many zigs and zags of conversations about giving leading up to and throughout the day.

Bingo. Hashtags are the digital reality of leaderless citizens movements. They soar. They disappear. They morph and change. As an organization or company, you can gently encourage what you consider their proper use. You cannot mandate it. At least not yet – and what a troubling thought it is that public discussion organized by hashtag might someday be constrained by property law and the power of corporate brands.

Besides, the giant American social commons should itself be the broad beneficiary of #GivingTuesday – that’s the point, after all. The idea is focus beyond the red hot consumer markets to social causes in the broadest possible manner. This can and should include large national nonprofits, local organizations, start-ups, faith-based groups, even individuals.

I have no problem with the founders of the movement – the work of the 92nd Street Y and the United Nations Foundation in getting this thing off the ground is admirable and worthy of support. Likewise, the initial group of “official” participants includes organizations and individuals I’ve both worked with and admired from afar; and there’s a very impressive list of partner organizations, both national and local. As supporter Jean Case wrote, the effort is indeed “designed to create a moment and build momentum for the season of giving back.”

Still, that TM stopped me. And then I read the lengthy terms of use section on the organization’s website, and I paused some more. It conflates the name – #GivingTuesday, which is a hashtag – with claims of trademark and copyright. It makes it look like #GivingTuesday itself is intellectual property. Every reference on the site is to #GivingTuesday™ – as if ownership of that mark is valid. Because really, #GivingTuesday is not #GivingTuesday™ – and it certainly wasn’t yesterday. Many organizations used the tag and became part of the movement, as did thousands of individuals. And frankly, I’m not sure there should be an official web-based home for the initiative that is owned by the 92nd Street Y, with all rights reserved.

In many ways, I agree with the sentiment of my friend Jonathan Greenblatt, Special Assistant to President Obama and Director of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation: “Giving Tuesday is intended to encourage Americans to reflect and give back. This commemoration does not seek to coordinate funds toward a particular charity or to direct volunteers to support a specific cause. Instead, it attempts to encourage active citizenship. It seeks to open a national conversation about the ability of all Americans to participate in positive action.”

Note the precise use of the word “open” in Jonathan’s post. I think #GivingTuesday can be an truly important addition to the end of year economic stew, and help to power the kinds of causes that change people’s lives. And I will be very curious to see some of the numbers as they emerge after year’s end. I wouldn’t be surprised if the big donation processors like Network for Good saw a substantial uptick on Tuesday. Blackbaud, a #GivingTuesday partner and the sector’s largest software provider, processed $10 million in online donations on inaugural #GivingTuesday – a 53% increase when compared to the Tuesday after Thanksgiving the previous year. Who knows, eventually #GivingTuesday may help Americans punch past that charitable ceiling of two percent of GDP that has been in place for a couple of generations. But if it does so, it will be because the day is “owned” – trademarked if you will – by the broad philanthropic public, not by a coalition, committee or incorporated entity.

My longtime collaborator Susan Carey Dempsey had an excellent onPhilanthropy post today that really took a broad view of #GivingTuesday and its possibilities. Here’s how she summed up, and I think it’s spot on:

So this is what I ask: Let’s cover Giving Tuesday, and encourage people to participate, but urge them to think. I’d like to encourage the founding partners to follow up with surveys and analysis as to what motivated people to give, and how they collected information to inform their giving. The donations of caring, conscientious American individuals are a tremendous force for good. We must do our best to channel those great gifts to achieve their best impact, by making sure we inform, advise, report on results, and be sure we produce not just more giving, but better giving. Sounds like a good New Year’s resolution to me.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

While I appreciate your opinion on this, I feel that it is a bit too negative/to unrealistic, in this litigious day and age. What if I were to copyright givingtuesday tomorrow and I wanted it to go away? It would and it would be my property.

In order to get things done in the non-profit world someone has to own and run it. If 92nd Street Y and UN foundation were the spearheads for this, they should get the credit. My question to you is what if they didn’t and givingtuesday never happened? All that money/time/volunteers would have never gotten to the places that need them most. In this day and age why not a non-profit lead the charge not a govt or corporation? I will finish with this philanthropy is in people sometimes it just needs a push. #GivingTuesday was that push Trademarked are not.

While I appreciate your opinion on this, I feel that it is a bit too negative/to unrealistic, in this litigious day and age. What if I were to copyright givingtuesday tomorrow and I wanted it to go away? It would and it would be my property.

In order to get things done in the non-profit world someone has to own and run it. If 92nd Street Y and UN foundation were the spearheads for this, they should get the credit. My question to you is what if they didn’t and givingtuesday never happened? All that money/time/volunteers would have never gotten to the places that need them most. In this day and age why not a non-profit lead the charge not a govt or corporation? I will finish with this philanthropy is in people sometimes it just needs a push. #GivingTuesday was that push Trademarked or not.

I fully agree. Such a movement can have a recognized and generally acknowledged figurehead, but it cannot have an owner.

Color me cynical, though. Despite Blackbaud’s (and I see in the comments Network for Good’s) marked spike during the first day, I will reserve judgment until we know a LOT more. These increases without context are meaningless. Did the event really increase giving, or just herd it all from other days onto the November 27th? Were the corporate challenge grants authentic or just repurposing other already-budgeted charitable dollars to this campaign? Were any new donors engaged, and will their new engagement be meaningful or exist as a singular flash?

My initial reaction when I heard about #GivingTuesday was that it was a kind of tacky latching on to an already overused trend. If this keeps up, we’ll have to rename Thanksgiving to #ThankingThursday. (Oh wait I should go TM that right now.)

After watching it happen and seeing some of the statistics, my cynicism has been eased somewhat. But I’m still not convinced a one-day giving frenzy is a good idea. It may help nonprofits cast a wider net, or it may just add to the noise and pressure of a time that many families already find overwhelming. It may raise awareness of giving during a time of self-indulgence, or it may debase the concept of charity to the same level as a shopping spree. It may raise more money, or it may just focus existing donations on a single date. It may engage more companies and individuals, or it may become just another brand-builder for companies to exploit.

I hope the organizing nonprofits and companies do provide some deep analysis on the lasting impacts of this. I hope it turns out to be a hugely valuable movement for society. But I’m not convinced. Yet.

Tom, I think it would be useful if 92Y and the UN have the trademark for the sole purpose of making sure no one ‘hijacks’ the Giving Tuesday name (not the hashtag, we know that is ephemeral.) Making sure that it doesn’t become “Giving to Hate Causes Tuesday” or something stupid like that by owning the trademark makes sense to me. So, if they intend to hold it “for the good of the community” and are transparent about it, great.

I’d like to see a commitment that they’re not trying to control how the hashtag is used, or limiting legitimate organizations from using raising money on that day.

I dunno – maybe you’re right. But so far, they’re being anything but transparent. And while I can see your argument for hosting the URL, not sure the full protection of a TM for the name of a citizen’s movement is warranted. Check out that TOS!